Hypersonic from here and there.
One of the cornerstones of the Яussa military propaganda of recent months is the concept of hypersonic missile, which is also passed off as "non-ballistic", which Putin passes off as "weapons that no one else has", and which continues to be talked about on TV Russian. The problem is that the Italian press fails to discern and completely falls for it.
So, let's start from the beginning: hypersonic or ballistic?
The question is very badly posed. "Hypersonic" refers to speed, while "ballistic" refers to trajectory. To say that a hypersonic missile is different from previous ballistic missiles is like saying that a train either goes fast or goes to Verona. No, it doesn't work.
I repeat: hypersonic refers to speed, ballistic to trajectory.
Let's get to the point: EVERY hypercontinental missile is hypersonic. And the vector that took astronauts to the moon in 1969 is hypersonic too. And even the missiles that brought curiosity to Mars were hypersonic.
For a very simple reason: if you want to leave Earth's orbit, or reach it, you MUST be hypersonic. Each planet, depending on its velocity, has its own escape velocity. Earth's escape velocity is 11,186 km / s (25.022 mph or about Mach 37).
I repeat: Mach 37. Not the miserable Mach 5 we are talking about. Sure, when you move away from the planet this speed drops, but practically every ICBM is hypersonic. For example, the Minuteman is hypersonic. ( https://nuke.fas.org/guide/usa/icbm/lgm-30_3.htm ) since 1959.
So why all this war dance about hypersonic missiles? When a person insists a lot on having an offensive weapon, they are generally trying not to point out that they don't have a good defense system.
And in fact, if we talk about anti-missile defense systems, the West speaks of systems that, depending on the protected area, range from Aegis to Iron Dome. When we talk about the same thing for the Russians… .well…. we are not really there.
And let's be clear, it is a historical weakness of the Russians, which also VERY amplifies their fear of being attacked by NATO.
Not that they haven't tried. But the problem is not trying, the problem is the results.
A nuclear war against a nation is not "my missiles against you", but "my missiles against your defenses". Because if I have "only" 1000 missiles, but they all arrive, while you have 6000 but 10% arrive, the result is that I am stronger.
On this matter, thanks to many factors, ranging from the immensity of the space to be protected (and the USSR was MUCH bigger than today's Russia) and some technological deficiencies, the "anti-missile defense" of the Russians was simply a very credible threat. to return fire in larger volumes.
You can see this from many things: the American bases for the launch of ICBM, for example, are not moving. This means that the US is VERY confident that it can defend them: if they were hit with nuclear weapons, they would be disabled, right?
On the contrary, the Russians are NOT confident that they will be able to defend a missile base. For this, their launch method is as follows:
As they were not confident that they could defend some fixed installations, they mounted the missiles on the trucks, which are lost in the vast Russian territory.
This happens at a considerable expense in terms of safety: the truck MUST ALWAYS be connected to the communication and defense system. If he is not told to throw, he does not throw. If it doesn't get the coordinates, it doesn't know where to throw.
Why this implementation difference? Because the Russians weren't confident they could stop Western missiles.
This is also due to the fact that Western missiles were of different types depending on the country: France, USA, UK. (and Italy almost got involved with the Alpha project, from which the ASI vectors derive).
Each missile has its own peculiarity and its own attack strategy. Consequently, Russian missile defense would have had to take into account all these strategies, mixed in whatever way.
For this, Moscow does have an anti-missile system, but it is assumed that it barely gives people time to get off the metro or the tunnel network under the city, designed to contain the entire population.
In the US there was no such thing, because in the end they thought they could stop the missiles.
The Russian anti-missile defenses, that is, are not up to par. If you think about it, there has been talk of space shields, anti-missile shields and defense systems since Reagan. But the West talks about it.
Russian propaganda has never magnified its defenses as it magnifies its missiles and torpedoes. For one reason: in terms of defenses, Яussia has little to boast.
This thing has pros and cons: for example, the West has developed fewer and faster and more elusive attack systems, for the simple reason that it was not needed. The Russian defenses were so bad that you could hit Putin in the head by putting a cat on a catapult, provided you have a titanium / molybdenum cat and a very powerful catapult.
So the West never worried about it: after all, two missiles were enough to sink the Moskva, which were not disturbed in the least by the ship's defenses. The ship itself, moreover, was famous for its offensive qualities.
Today China arrives and then the whole West must compensate for its greater competence in the world of hypersonic gliders, but if it has reached this point it is because, before China, no one has ever developed a worrying anti-missile defense.
And so now a race for non-ballistic hypersonic systems will start.
But it's for China, not Russia.
Obviously the heads of state say that Russia threatening or mentioning the use of Sarmat missiles (which exist, even if they are few) is worrying. As worrying as it is when they threaten to use Poseidons.
But the Яussi know very well (apart from a bizarre-styled presenter and a guy who, with an average lifespan of 66 years, is one step away from the grave) what would happen next: everyone would throw everything they have, and they wouldn't be capable of stopping anything.
This catastrophic deficiency in missile defense systems is what the Russians are trying to compensate with this propaganda: it is true that you would stop most of the Russian missiles, but we need only a few. This is the message.
We saw it with Trump during the Syrian war: at one point, during a dinner, Trump orders 60 cruise missiles to be launched, and 60 out of 60 arrive at their destination on a Russian base. Why make them hypersonic if the enemy doesn't know how to stop them already?
However, this shortage cannot be compensated for by an abundance of offensive weapons. Because what happens happens: we go to war out of FEAR that someone will put missiles in Ukraine, and the fear doubles when we fear that someone will put missiles in Finland and Sweden.
But how much more dangerous is a missile if it is hypersonic? Well, how much more dangerous is it if it's stealth, for example, or if it's close by.
In general, the problem is: if I attack you, can you defend yourself?
In general, to defend oneself it is necessary:
- see the enemy
- understand its trajectory
- alert and activate interceptors
- intercept it
now, if a plane / missile is stealth, you will typically spot it two or three minutes before it hits you. And that's the time you have left to do anything.
Even if the missile is very fast you will spot it a short time before: when the Russians put a lot of emphasis on the fact that they would reach Berlin in 116 seconds, they are saying just that: that in Berlin they would only notice 116 seconds earlier.
It does not matter that the trajectory is straight: the new Chinese missiles go into orbit and then return, after having toured the planet, and when they release they offer little more than a minute to react.
So we can discuss many technologies, ranging from strategic bombers stealth to hypersonic speed to electronic warfare: the question is "how much time do they leave for the enemy to react".
The Poseidon torpedo, for example, is very slow, the problem is that when you spot it it is too late: as you can see, stealth can compensate and overcome hypersonicity.
And it would be possible to compensate for the hypersonicity with a very different generation of weapons: the important thing is that they do not leave the enemy time to actively defend themselves.
All this magnification of the systems of offense, however, comes from fear, the fear that comes from being defended little and badly.
THE same fear that caused the war in Ukraine, and which now risks causing others after Sweden and Finland joined NATO.
So let's expect Яussia to beat their fists on the chest a lot, because today we are doing our best to scare them.
And frightening someone who has exclusively offensive weapons as a resource is not always wise.
But that said, hypersonic is largely a Hype: as I said, ALL ICBMs have been hypersonic, since the 1950s.